"Most of origin-of-life research is as relevant to the real problem of life's origin as rubber-band powered propeller model planes are to the military's most sophisticated stealth aircraft." (Ch.8) "The origin of information is not a problem of chemistry. Chemistry can be a carrier of information, but it cannot be its source." (Ch.8)

"Chemists typically do not concern themselves with the problem of the origin of information because their work presupposes a smart chemist ready to provide it!" (Ch.8)

"The claim that natural laws are sufficient to account for the origin of life is far-fetched. Natural laws work against the origin of life. Natural laws describe material processes that consume the raw materials of life, turning them into tars, melanoids, and other nonbiological substances that thereafter are completely useless to life." (Ch.8)

"How does evolutionary ethics make sense of people who transcend their selfish genes? Genuine human goodness, which looks to the welfare of others even at one's own (and one's genes') expense, is an unresolvable problem for evolutionary ethics. Its proponents have only one way of dealing with goodness, namely, to explain it away. Mother Teresa is a prime target in this regard. If Mother Teresa's acts of goodness on behalf of the poor and sick can be explained away in evolutionary terms, then surely so can all acts of human goodness." (Ch.1)

"Gould admits that anything Dawkins really cares about regarding biological structures – their origin, function, complexity, adaptive significance – is the product of natural selection. Gould was as much a Darwinist as Dawkins." (Ch.3)

"Vestigial structures are entirely consistent with intelligent design, suggesting structures that were initially designed but then lost their function through accident or disuse. Nevertheless, vestigial structures also provide evidence for a limited form of evolution. From both a design-theoretic and an evolutionary perspective, a vestigial structure is one that started out functional but then lost its function. Yet, in the case of evolution, vestigiality explains only the loss of function and not its origination. Vestigiality at best documents a degenerative form of evolution in which preexisting functional structures change and lose their function." (Ch.5)

"When Eugenie Scott calls for a technician to stand over a monkey's shoulder and correct its mistakes, she commits the fallacy of begging the question or arguing in a circle. In other words, Scott presupposes the very thing she needs to establish as the conclusion of a sound scientific argument. Indeed, scientific rigor demands that we ask who in turn is standing over the technician's shoulder and instructing the technician what is and is not a mistake in the typing of Shakespeare. If the technician's assistance to the monkey is to mirror natural selection, then the technician needs to help the monkey without knowing or giving away the answer. And yet that's exactly what the technician is doing here." (Ch.7)

"Darwinists have traditionally hidden behind the complexities of biological systems to shelter their theory from critical scrutiny. Choose a biological system that is too complex, and one can't even begin to calculate the probabilities associated with its evolution. Consider the eye. A widely held myth in the biological community is that Darwin's theory has explained the evolution of the vertebrate eye. In fact, the theory hasn't done anything of the sort." (Ch.7)

added in edit: I think we need a new thread just for this.

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

"Darwinists have traditionally hidden behind the complexities of biological systems to shelter their theory from critical scrutiny.

Hey you sciencey types here (you know who you are), I want to know how do you hide a theory from critical scrutiny. Do you simply not tell anyone about the theory (like the IDC camp)? Do you have secret labs where you discuss your theory and not tell anyone about your conversations?

Please tell me where and how you hide your theories, I swear I won't tell a soul!

Bonus question - how do you keep others from scrutinizing your theory, the one you keep hidden. Please tell me your secret. I want to know how to keep people from scrutinizing my own theories.

... honestly, I just don't know why the fuck so many creationists think Gould's work supports their position. Gould seems to have been similarly completely confused by their enthusiasm for punctuated equilibria. Do they just like it because he comes off as rebellious, witty and anti-orthodoxy?

And as usual, Dembski's approach to information theory is retarded. The idea that you "can't gain information" is just a repackaging of the second law of thermodynamics, and suffers from the same stupid problems.

THERE IS INFORMATION EVERYWHERE. AND ENERGY, TOO. THEY'RE FREE FOR THE TAKING BY WHATEVER PROCESS IS CAPABLE OF EXPLOITING THEM. WE ARE NOT IN A VACUUM.

... ahem. Excuse me! I like how he's still flogging the eye, however.

Edited because I can.

--------------"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

Ha! Excellent! I think that you should claim that your relentless fisking of Dr. Dr. Dembski led to his latest melt-down. His latest claim that The Designer = The Christian God pretty much takes him out of any futher the designer is not god discussion.

I'm also thinking that Dembski just guaranteed that he will never get the opportunity to debate us from the witness stand.

Do you think Dembski is working on the next sequal to Pandas, The Design Of Stupidity?

Edited for spelling and just for fun

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

Since Dipski believes irreducible complexity is the evidence of an intelligent designer, and he believes the intelligent designer is the "christian god", can we conclude he believes malaria is the christian god's gift to mankind?

Since Dipski believes irreducible complexity is the evidence of an intelligent designer, and he believes the intelligent designer is the "christian god", can we conclude he believes malaria is the christian god's gift to mankind?

Yes, I am sure you are correct. So if you are a True Christian, you just have to grin and bear it and chant on: "Thank You Lord, may I have another?"

Scarry stuff.

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

Since Dipski believes irreducible complexity is the evidence of an intelligent designer, and he believes the intelligent designer is the "christian god", can we conclude he believes malaria is the christian god's gift to mankind?

Yes, I am sure you are correct. So if you are a True Christian™, you just have to grin and bear it and chant on: "Thank You Lord, may I have another?"

Scarry stuff.

Oh, I know the answer to this one!There wasn't any malaria until after "Adam's Fall." 'Twas SIN wot done it!Can I join the death cult now?

Since Dipski believes irreducible complexity is the evidence of an intelligent designer, and he believes the intelligent designer is the "christian god", can we conclude he believes malaria is the christian god's gift to mankind?

Yes, I am sure you are correct. So if you are a True Christian™, you just have to grin and bear it and chant on: "Thank You Lord, may I have another?"

Scarry stuff.

Oh, I know the answer to this one!There wasn't any malaria until after "Adam's Fall." 'Twas SIN wot done it!Can I join the death cult now?

Welcome Mrs. Peng, and yes, there is plenty of room on the road to hell. :)

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

Please know, though, that the early success of the book does not mean we are without significant challenges in the weeks and months ahead. There will be intense opposition to our attempts to market the book widely. The Design of Life is a thousand times more threatening to the opposition than Pandas, the book they tried to censure. Success will come with a big price tag. The marketing and PR expenses required, if we set our sites on tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or more, in sales, are likely to be quite large.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

OK, I just read the drivel at the fte site. I've looked at some of the reviews at Amazon for this sciencey book. I've lurked here, and at Pharyngula and The Loom etc for over a year now. I've read Dr Forrest's (on whom I have a very very bad crush indeed) Trojan Horse, Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale and Climbing Mt Improbable,, wossname's Endless Forms Most Beautiful, the other wossname's Why Intelligent Design Fails, Eugenie Scott's Creationism Vs Evolution, every issue of Natural History for the last 18 months, plus as much creationist claptrap I can stomach at UD, and as far as I can tell, ID has contributed exactly NOTHING NEWER than Paley's Watchmaker argument. Nothing. Not even doodly squat. The best they can manage is a bunch of carping about things that haven't been figured out yet.

I've seen some of the most amazing Tard evar from lurking here, but it always just seems to boil down to the "design inference," or some obfuscated way of rephrasing it.

So when do you guys who do the actual work of figuring things out, you know, the actual science, get to tell the cdesign proponentists to have a big warm glass of shut the hell up? How many more times do they get to be completely wrong before they have to depart a lot and let the real scientists get back to work?

I read some of the excerpts available for The Design of Life and I found that I knew where to look on Talk Origins to refute the load of horsehockey Dr Dr D was spewing. His "arguments" are so bad that a guy like me, who only reads these things because the Tard Takedowns are so priceless, can remember where to look in the index of claims to refute the swill being offered as "Groundbreaking" in a "Brand New" book! Gah! Feh! Poot!

It's warmed over worm poop. When will it stop? Please, make it stop. I'm begging you.

Oh, and sorry about the Mrs Peng, for some reason I wrote Mrs when I mean Mr. I'm not a Mrs, although I play one on TV. No, not really. I'm a Mr, but I don't play a Mrs on TV. Although I would. I've got the legs for it, When they are shaved that is. Not that I shave em. much. er, OK I'm going back to lurking now.

The design of life "give us more money" page quotes some of the Amazon reviews.A review quoted by FTE says

Quote

In short, Dembski and Wells have written a comprehensive text of absolutely sparkling perspicacity. 'One long argument' of a quality that Darwin could only have dreamt has been given, and a bright new research paradigm has found its way into the sunlight. This book will be praised and it will be vilified, but most importantly it will be read because it is eminently worthy of being read — and the young minds who read it will have their eyes opened to a new and better and more accurate and vastly healthier scientific understanding of the world.

I know that people have pointed out that the positive reviews are mostly, if not all written by comrades of Behe and Dembski, but I thought If I picked a name from the reviews they themselves quoted it would not lead back to the Disco institute.

Amazingly they then say on the FTE page after posting these "reviews"

Quote

Of course, not all of the reviews posted in the first month have been as exuberant as those above; some are venomous. We are receiving numerous requests for review copies from people we know intend to try to destroy it. (We do not intentionally send complimentary review copies to these people.)

Their intent is to deceive.

Amusingly "B. L. FROM REDMOND, WA" also reviewed "Shattered Tablets: Why We Ignore the Ten Commandments at Our Peril" where he says

Quote

The result is a powerful critique of secularization that strongly motivates Klinghoffer's prophetic call for a return to America's Judeo-Christian heritage. I am not at all optimistic that this call will be heeded, but the uncompromising clarity with which the need for it is explained and illustrated makes this book a very important one indeed

So, FTK, no return to America's Judeo-Christian heritage planned by the Discovery Institute at all then?

Snapshot of the page as of today

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

In addition to my comment above, I'd like to point out the irony of a organisation called Foundation for Thought and Ethics thinking this is an ethical way to drum up positive publicity for a book. The FTE mission is

Quote

The purpose of FTE is to restore the freedom to know to young people, especially in matters of worldview, morality, and conscience, and to return the right of informed consent to families in the education of their children.

Morality eh? Hmm.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

The purpose of FTE is to restore the freedom to know to young people, especially in matters of worldview, morality, and conscience, and to return the right of informed consent to families in the education of their children.

Yes, it is difficult to match the high moral values in that sentence with others from the same page.

Quote

We are receiving numerous requests for review copies from people we know intend to try to destroy it. (We do not intentionally send complimentary review copies to these people.)

Quote

A book of this quality, eliciting such powerful reviews immediately upon publication, deserves the strongest possible backing. I hope you'll continue to pray and also write the largest check you can, and send it in with the information requested on the enclosed card.

It isn't too hard to get positive and "powerful" reviews when you only give review copies to DI fellows.

Teach the controversy, guys. Send those books to legitimate reviewers. If your arguments are that "powerful", they should be able to stand a little heat.

Oh, I forgot. This isn't about data and arguments. It's about gaming the Amazon review system and getting money from rubes. Ethics, indeed.

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. - Pattiann Rogers